What other semi-auto would you trade your AR15 for?

[Nom de Forum]

"Excuse me, but I must remind you the AR is a “rotating” design as it has a rotating bolt. It is certainly not “funky”."
Look at point #2. I said the barrel extension specifically has swept the world over in almost every design case, but the gas tube/key/carrier piston thing has not. The pressurizing of the bolt carrier is undeniably an uncommon (i.e. 'funky') characteristic when practically every other design that's been implemented for any length of time uses external force to drive the carrier back.

Yes, practically every other design that’s been implemented for any length of time uses external force to drive the carrier back and yet none are as successful at versatility in accomplishing many missions well as the AR rifle design.

"I challenge you to find one post-WWII service rifle design that has been developed to do as many things as well as the AR system. It will not be the M14, FAL, AK, G3, FAMAS, STG57, Enfield or AUG."

Example;
AK dual-lug rotating long/short stroke action. Aside from being the basis of the majority of service rifles for the last century, it has been applied to everything from pistols to belt fed heavy machine guns. Two large lugs require the barrel trunnion area be larger than can be obtained with a Stoner-type lug ring, but tolerances can be a bit looser and construction with machine tools easier. M1 Garand lands solidly here, as does the AR70/SIG550, and even the HK MP7 if you'll 'permit' me to include it by way of it's G36-esque gas system (but AR-style multilug bolt head). IIRC, even the M249 called in to do what the M4 can't uses this system (though is hardly the best execution of it)

BREN rear tilting bolt long stroke action. Again, applied to everything from rifles to heavy belt fed machine guns and anti-tank rifles, numerous variations for different roles, numerous nations arriving at the same solution (Goryunov, for example). Killed due to the need for beefed up long receivers to carry lug load from the rear of the bolt to the barrel trunnion. I suppose you could lump the FAL/FN49/SKS in this category if you look broadly enough.

G3 roller delay. Applied to everything from 9mm MP5s and the PSG1, to the belt fed Amile by CETME. Adopted/developed/stolen by many nations like Switzerland (STGW57, which turned out to be a very nice shooter today ). Killed by weight required to retard the bolt, even in spite of it being delayed, and by poor design choices by the trail blazing designers at CETME and H&K who made the design much more complicated and unmodifiable than it needed to be. I think history has also shown these designs were also less user friendly than they really needed to be (never get in a thumb wrestling match with a Franco-era Spaniard, German vet, or Swiss reservist)

VZ58 pivoting locking piece. Applied to the VZ58 rifle in x39 and the belt fed x54r UK59. Unique to Czech designs, despite being fixing entirely the shortcomings of a rear tilting bolt system when it comes to receiver complexity, size, and weight. The platforms it's been tried on used expensive machined receivers in Czech tradition rather than cheaper forged trunnions or barrel extensions, which probably is why it hasn't caught on (though the design itself does not require this production method). Alas, I think this action was doomed by bad timing; the late fifties being the time when post war Europe, USSR, and the US had already chosen their infantry arms for the foreseeable future and had no interest in novelty.

Degtyarov. My personal favorite at the moment . RPD (x39), DP28/DPM (x54r), DShK (12.7x108mm), and I think there's an even bigger 20mm or grenade launcher out there, too. I'm adapting it the opposite direction for a 7.62x25 carbine. It flares out two flaps on either side of the bolt into receiver recesses. Brilliantly simple, safe, reliable, and easy to make, but has the same receiver-design shortcomings as the tilt bolt setups with their heavy machined parts.

Direct gas impingement. AG-42/Hakim/Rasheed, AR15, MAS49/56 (I think). And I think the AR is unique among them about pressuring the interior of the bolt (I'm honestly not that familiar with these obscure guns, though). Aside from the American development, which had the whole weight of our military complex thrown behind it for 50 straight years, didn't become particularly popular until quite recently when the Euros made their last equipment upgrade (late 80's/90's through the present). A lot of it's increased stature internationally can be explained by the fact it was front and center in two large scale wars for a decade straight, and performed well, which helped increase its market share independent of its excellent record. More though, it is explained by the M4 variant which was demonstrably smaller/lighter than competing platforms at the time. Now that the merits and deficiencies of the M4 are better understood, newer designs seek to capitalize on the compact size and lightweight modularity, while not sacrificing sustained firepower capabilities and (supposedly) increased maintenance (though that's what they back in the 60's about the AR itself )

That is a very nice summary of action design in various weapon types you provided above but that is not relevant to the point I am making. The point is about the flexibility and versatility of the of the rifle design. Not one of the weapons you mentioned that uses the various action designs you summarized has demonstrated the versatility of one AR-15. One AR-15 receiver can be transformed into numerous configurations of caliber, barrel length, stock length, and mission type (SMG to PDW to Infantry Rifle to Grenadiers Rifle to Sniper Rifle to LMG) with ease and do all those missions better than anyone of the weapons you mentioned could. AK sniper rifle = I hope than is what the sniper that is shooting at me is using. M1 Garand SMG = not happening. HK MP7 Infantry Rifle = not possible. M249 Infantry Rifle = too big, too heavy, too unwieldy. AR70/SIG550 = not beating any AR-15 set-up for sniper level accuracy or making as good a SMG or PDW. FAL/FN49/SKS all with very little versatility and headed to the scrap-pile as soon as most of their users could find something better. An MP5 SMG is not a G3 Rifle in 9mm caliber, but an AR-15 in 9mm with a 10” barrel is a SMG. A PSG-1 is an accurized G3 Rifle that is an inferior sniper rifle to an accurized AR. All the other weapons you mentioned are all fine for a limited mission but none is going to be improved or modified to match what the AR can do. Remember we are talking about rifle design not action design.

I ain't talkin' smack about your, or any, ARs. This is merely my observation from learning about the operational details of a ton of different platforms both successful and unsuccessful throughout history. Similar to how a roller-locked recoil operated pistol is fairly uncommon in history, so is a rifle which unlocks the bolt via internal pressure. And if the latest crop of designs being pitched is any indication, it will not become increasingly popular in from-scratch design efforts. That was the entirety of my statement.

Yeah you are kinda talkin’ smack about ARs, even if it is unintentional. Which I am not taking personally. I am talking about a single weapon system’s versatility to do many things well and you are primarily talking about many different types of components enabling multiple weapon types to do a single thing well.

"Most of the post-WWII designs have been replaced or reached a development and modification point of diminishing returns."
I wouldn't argue the AR design is evolving by 'leaps and bounds' these days either, but then again, no one is . I also don't happen to see the AR as being nearly as modular as many make it out to be, which may color my perception of its ongoing 'development' differently (i.e. a 50cal, 5.7x28, pistol blowback, or piston upper are not outgrowths of the AR design in my eyes, but rather independent ideas shoehorned to fit an existing form for better marketing)

That is just the point, evolution often does occur in leaps and bounds between periods of little change. Ask any biologist, zoologist, etc. Not much happened in the evolution of the AR system during the 1970s but the same is not true after 1980. Who is to say there will not be another period of evolutionary leaps and bounds. What you refer to as “independent ideas shoehorned to fit an existing form for better marketing” I refer to as ingenious exploration and exploitation of a serendipitously versatile design.

TCB
*"The only other military machine I can immediately think of that has demonstrated a design that has outstanding inherent ability for improvement and modification to do so many things well is the Supermarine Spitfire."
I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate (if you care to). I know they stopped making them with the more efficient elliptical wings early on due to production difficulties, but that's the extent of my Spitfire configuration history knowledge

Actually, what you know about the Spitfire wing just isn’t so. Sorry, you have misunderstood or been misinformed by your source. The elliptical wing was used in almost all the various “Marks” right to the end. For the most part all the changes to the elliptical wing from adoption in 1936 into the 1950s were minor in comparison to the few Marks where an entirely different airfoil design was used. My point tying the AR to the Spitfire is this: Like the AR, modifications to the basic design of the Spitfire permitted it to perform many very different missions well, over a period of decades, that its contemporaries rarely could match. The difference between the AR-15 of the Vietnam Era and that of today is similar to the design evolution and versatility of the Spitfire. Today’s AR only resembles the original AR, just like the last Spitfires with twice the horsepower, many times the firepower, and many mission configurations only resemble the original Spitfire Mark 1. Few weapons systems can come close to matching the AR and Spitfire design flexibility and mission capabilities. If you are interested in learning more about the design flexibility and mission versatility of the Spitfire, I recommend Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady. It is considered the most respected and definitive book on the subject.

 

[Robert]

Trade my AR? Uh no. I'd not trade my AR for anything and I'd sure as heck not trade it for an AK. I have my FAL so I am good. Bullpups do absolutely nothing for me so no, I'd not trade my AR for anything.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Sniping?
PDW?
SMG and Grenadier?

How many uppers are you walking around with in order to cover your bases? That's alot of crap to haul if your mission suddenly changes due to chaos theory in order to keep with the theme of the AR being the end all "system" (I find it pretentious to call a firearm that in anything but quotes) and ultimately versatile. In a discussion of trading one semi for another, why is the subject of transforming a civilian carbine into a light machine gun even plausible?:banghead:

I'd trade mine for an Arsenal AK variant in 762x39, and here's why: They don't care so much about running wet or not. They are ridiculously and boringly reliable with any ammo or mag combo I use. I rarely NEED to do a scrutinizing cleaning job to them. In my experience, I've not seen or heard first hand of a reliable AR chambered in 762x39, which lets face it, is a cheaper ammo, hits harder, Walmart ammo in that caliber can penetrate barriers, and has been effective for decades. 545x39? Not practical for me because i cant get large quantities and variety locally. There's calibers that'll do a better job, but not at less than $.25 a round for off the shelf. Do I need to snipe with it? Well, not with a WASR, but an Arsenal with an ammo change and magnified optic in QD mounts is easier to carry than a whole different AR upper. When a higher end AK can and often do exceed the accuracy of top tier ARs, one could use it to snipe within its effective range.

My point is, whether or not the AR variants are superior and not trade worthy is a moot point. Individual needs and/or circumstances dictate what is most effective. For holding down the fort here in my woods, a quality AKM is as good if not better to any iteration of AR I've owned.

So, in summation, Arsenal AKM.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I agree with you Robert. I don't care for bull pups either. I broke myself on the only bullpup I have ever wanted, a PS90. After shooting my LGS owner's, I found the trigger to be much longer and harder pull than I expected. I never have wanted to buy an AK. Nothing against them, just never cared for them. I know they are one of, if not the most dependable rifles made. I just grew up watching our enemies use them. Then was shot at by them.... Kind of turned me against them.

 

[jad0110]

To the OP

My advice, based on personal experience: DON'T do the trade.

You state you enjoy your AR. If that is true, even a little, I promise you will come to regret the trade one day. It may be years down the road, but it will happen. I've done 5 trades in my life, and I've grown to strongly regret 3 of them (the 2 I don't regret was one gun that was a hateful piece of junk from the depths of h*ll, and the other never felt right in my hand).

For example, I sold an AK pattern rifle to fund my first AR 5+ years ago, because though I liked AKs I liked ARs even more (and still do). It has taken that long for me to regret selling the AK. So I corrected that mistake yesterday by ordering a Zastava N-PAP M70 from Aimsurplus. I'll probably always prefer my ARs (and M-1 carbine for that matter) to the AK pattern, but what can I say. I'm a gun nut and I love all guns, even if some do it for me more than others (AR vs AK). In total, I've reversed 2 of my 3 regret sells. I'm still looking for a 6" Taurus Model 66 .357 Magnum though.

My recommendation would be to keep the AR (and possibly modify it, or replace it with another AR platform you like even more) and buy a rifle you want, assuming you have the funds. In semi autos, I would personally consider an M-1 Carbine, SKS or M1 Garand. I do love my milsurps, including my Finnish M39. Then there are .22LRs of some sort, every rifleman could use a good .22 (Marlin Model 60, CZ-452, Ruger 10/22, S&W M&P-15, etc). I'm also partial to my Marlin 336RC .30-30 and 39A .22 LR lever guns.

Of course, these are my tastes and not yours. Just giving you some ideas.

 

[claiborne]

An M1a or M14

I sold both of my AR-15's and bought another M1A, best trade ever....

 

[Nom de Forum]

Sniping?
PDW?
SMG and Grenadier?

How many uppers are you walking around with in order to cover your bases? That's alot of crap to haul if your mission suddenly changes due to chaos theory in order to keep with the theme of the AR being the end all "system" (I find it pretentious to call a firearm that in anything but quotes) and ultimately versatile. In a discussion of trading one semi for another, why is the subject of transforming a civilian carbine into a light machine gun even plausible?:banghead:

The comments about flexibility and versatility are not about a mission where multiple uppers would be carried. The comments are about the ability to perform different weapon type missions simple by modifying a single design, which I think you probably understood. Sorry you don’t think the depth and width of discussion should be temporarily expanded after plenty of the usual minimally informative or platitudinous get an AK, M1a, etc. comments. You should stop :banghead: before you hurt yourself because weapon “systems” is exactly what modern service rifles have become. All the different pieces of equipment that are installed or removed depending upon user preference and individual mission profile make them "systems".

I'd trade mine for an Arsenal AK variant in 762x39, and here's why: They don't care so much about running wet or not. They are ridiculously and boringly reliable with any ammo or mag combo I use. I rarely NEED to do a scrutinizing cleaning job to them. In my experience, I've not seen or heard first hand of a reliable AR chambered in 762x39, which lets face it, is a cheaper ammo, hits harder, Walmart ammo in that caliber can penetrate barriers, and has been effective for decades. 545x39? Not practical for me because i cant get large quantities and variety locally. There's calibers that'll do a better job, but not at less than $.25 a round for off the shelf.

All true platitudinous AK comments.

Do I need to snipe with it? Well, not with a WASR, but an Arsenal with an ammo change and magnified optic in QD mounts is easier to carry than a whole different AR upper. When a higher end AK can and often do exceed the accuracy of top tier ARs, one could use it to snipe within its effective range.

Now these are not platitudinous AK comments. Why would you need to carry “a whole different AR upper”? Don’t you think there are QD mounts for ARs? Your accuracy comment is a rarely stated difficult to believe AK comment.

My point is, whether or not the AR variants are superior and not trade worthy is a moot point. Individual needs and/or circumstances dictate what is most effective. For holding down the fort here in my woods, a quality AKM is as good if not better to any iteration of AR I've owned.

So, in summation, Arsenal AKM.

Nothing wrong with your choice/suggestion based on your experience and generally agreed upon AK attributes.

Look, I am not trying to start an AR vs. AK or caliber war. My post was a not so subtle suggestion that awhendricks consider upgrading from his S&W instead of abandoning one of the two (AK being the other) most successful modern rifle patterns for something else that is not. If he decides to do it anyway, I suggest he consider another AK type, specifically a high quality AK variant.

 

[Fatelvis]

M1A

 

[goon]

I own a Smith & Wesson M&P AR15 and a SAR-1 AK47, and I have started to wonder what I would trade my AR15 for. I enjoy the AR15, but I've grown spoiled to the functionality of my AK and the minimal maintenance that goes along with it. I keep my firearms clean and ready to go, but I love the fact that I can grab the AK and not question whether the bcg is lubed well enough to function without a hiccup. I'm not looking to get into a debate about the AR15 vs AK47 because I know each rifle has both positive and negative attributes. What comparable semi-auto rifle would you trade your AR15 for? I've looked into M1As , FALs, and the Ruger Mini 14 Tactical, but I obviously do not know about all of the semi-autos on the market. Thanks for any suggestions.

Austin

One idea I'd like to float with the AR...

If you don't like what you have, might I suggest keeping the lower and selling the upper? You'll free up $450-$600 by selling a complete upper in VG condition and the lower would only add maybe $200 to your price. So keeping the lower doesn't cost you much and it also allows you to easily try the AR again at some point in the future if you want to.

 

[navystang]

an STGW 57 commando

http://img4.photobucket.com/albums/0703/guisan/album 2/571ced36.jpg

 

[Nom de Forum]

an STGW 57 commando

http://img4.photobucket.com/albums/0703/guisan/album 2/571ced36.jpg

Very cool!!!

I expect somebody in Hollywood will be ecstatic when they imagine these as being the spectacularly unusual gun prop for their new action film hero/villain.

For a short time back in 1979 I worked at Mandall's where we sold the fullsize 7.5 versions for about $1700. They always impressed me as the most sinister and intimidating looking rifles ever made.

 

[barnbwt]

"an STGW 57 commando"
Lol, what is that, a 10" barrel on a 30-06 class cartridge! Good times . May give the HK51k a run for its money;


I'm working on getting my newly-built STGW to be even sinister-er with a modified 63rnd DTM drum/pancake magazine


The funniest part is it's actually a borderline practical mag format; low profile, weight's under the carry handle, and 63rnds makes a lot more sense in a heavy barrel LMG than 24rnd boxes. Weighs in at 14lbs --empty

The STGW's also lend themselves well to 'sniper' type builds;


Fun fact; the STGW is actually much simpler than the H&K G3 in a lot of ways, but the Swiss approached the actual fabrication of the gun from the most expensive and impractical perspective imaginable, and blew away those gains (and then some).

-------------------------

"The comments about flexibility and versatility are not about a mission where multiple uppers would be carried. The comments are about the ability to perform different weapon type missions simple by modifying a single design"

The AR "lower" is basically a FCG box, not hugely different than the H&K G3 trigger housing (the AR would actually be even more versatile were the front end of the magwell part of the upper, but whatever) or even a MG42 grip housing for that matter. Since the gun more or less needs to be entirely rebuilt (as in, new bolt/carrier, barrel, buffer/stock, sights, upper receiver) to 'adapt' to the various configurations we find them in, I honestly don't see that aspect as much of an asset, but rather a detriment (but really easy to tout as a benefit from a marketing perspective since there are more parts to sell ). Many of the problems builders/manufacturers run into, when making much-maligned 'crummy' ARs, arise from the numerous interface points of the different parts of the rifle stacking up to yield a non-functional arm. It's cool to be able to break the receiver into smaller pieces than usual, but it also brings in requisite additional complexity that simpler designs avoid.

TCB

TCB

 

[Cee Zee]

I wouldn't want to step on any AR owner's toes because they are great rifles in many ways. But I have seen more than a few being worked on at the range because they weren't feeding right. I believe they were uber cheap examples of the AR but I'm not sure about all of them. The thing is I've only rarely seen AK's that needed constant work to keep them going. Unfortunately the one I saw that needed the most work was my own. But that had more to do with the Bozo who built it than it did with the platform. He promised me a working gun in an hour if I'd buy the kit parts. He was using some of his own parts. But it turned out he really wanted me to finance his learning curve with not only my money for the parts kit but my ammo for the endless testing. My "uber cheap" AK turned out to be the most expensive AK that I have ever seen and it never did work right. When I finally sold it because my "gunsmith" (his words, not mine) wouldn't even return my calls he got ticked at me. Heck I even gave him a riding lawnmower for working on it so much but when he got mad I just drove by his house and picked up that mower and dared him to come after it. It was given for him to make the gun work and he never did that. I'm not usually like that but his attitude was unreal. He would hide what he was doing from me as if I was trying to steal his trade secrets. Yeah right. I really wanted to learn how to build a piece of crap. I pretty much knew that aleady.

Most AK's I've seen have been extremely reliable. My own SKS has been so reliable it's almost unbelievable. I love AR's for their light weight and accuracy and their ability to be changed quickly. But for reliability the 7.62 x 39 variants I've seen have been more reliable on the whole. And that is the most important job of any battle carbine IMO. Your mileage may vary and I'm sure it will. There are plenty of good reasons to like AR's. I like them myself. But there's a reason I still use an SKS for HD. Reliability. And yes I know many AR's are very reliable. But they generally cost far more than I paid for my SKS too. I paid $100 for the one I use as my main, go to HD against that unlikely mob that may show up some day. At the time an AR would have cost me about $1500 and there's been a good bit of inflation since then. But I'm still holding on to the known variable in my dining room as my second line of defense (after my shotgun).

 

[Nom de Forum]

"an STGW 57 commando"
Lol, what is that, a 10" barrel on a 30-06 class cartridge! Good times . May give the HK51k a run for its money;


I'm working on getting my newly-built STGW to be even sinister-er with a modified 63rnd DTM drum/pancake magazine


The funniest part is it's actually a borderline practical mag format; low profile, weight's under the carry handle, and 63rnds makes a lot more sense in a heavy barrel LMG than 24rnd boxes. Weighs in at 14lbs --empty

The STGW's also lend themselves well to 'sniper' type builds;


Fun fact; the STGW is actually much simpler than the H&K G3 in a lot of ways, but the Swiss approached the actual fabrication of the gun from the most expensive and impractical perspective imaginable, and blew away those gains (and then some).

-------------------------

"The comments about flexibility and versatility are not about a mission where multiple uppers would be carried. The comments are about the ability to perform different weapon type missions simple by modifying a single design"

The AR "lower" is basically a FCG box, not hugely different than the H&K G3 trigger housing (the AR would actually be even more versatile were the front end of the magwell part of the upper, but whatever) or even a MG42 grip housing for that matter. Since the gun more or less needs to be entirely rebuilt (as in, new bolt/carrier, barrel, buffer/stock, sights, upper receiver) to 'adapt' to the various configurations we find them in, I honestly don't see that aspect as much of an asset, but rather a detriment (but really easy to tout as a benefit from a marketing perspective since there are more parts to sell ). Many of the problems builders/manufacturers run into, when making much-maligned 'crummy' ARs, arise from the numerous interface points of the different parts of the rifle stacking up to yield a non-functional arm. It's cool to be able to break the receiver into smaller pieces than usual, but it also brings in requisite additional complexity that simpler designs avoid.

TCB

TCB

As I have commented to you before in post and PM, you have an insanely cool, sinister and intimidating looking rifle. I don’t think many people realize how big, heavy, and wicked looking a STGW57 is until they hold one. They are awful (old definition usage, since the word awesome has been ruined by kids). Adding a drum magazine to it may make it a candidate for use in the next “Alien” movie sequel/prequel. If I could justify spending the money on a toy like that, which is what it would be for me, I’d buy one.

I agree the Swiss really lost all perspective in the fabrication of the STGW and AMT. It wasn’t just the import expenses in 1979 that caused them to be priced in the $1700 range when you could by a comparable M1a or HK91 for $400. While the STGW and AMT are certainly very accurate compared to many 7.62x51 class rifles, the most accurate STGWs and AMTs even with the addition of a scope are not going to enable you to shoot as accurately as a top of the line AR that is optimized for accuracy.

I know you are not seriously attempting to convince anyone that the STGW “Commando” or that ridiculous looking HK is a SMG or PDW class weapon . That HK is not the first “stunt” rifle created by installing a hilariously short barrel on a full power rifle cartridge chambered weapon. Quite a bit a difference between those and a 9mm AR.

Say what you want about Fire Control Group box design, extensive adaption requirements, marketing opportunism versus engineering simplicity, and problematic interface points; the fact is the basic layout of the AR has been very successfully used to create many viable variations. Simpler designs, not so much.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I wouldn't want to step on any AR owner's toes because they are great rifles in many ways. But I have seen more than a few being worked on at the range because they weren't feeding right. I believe they were uber cheap examples of the AR but I'm not sure about all of them. The thing is I've only rarely seen AK's that needed constant work to keep them going. Unfortunately the one I saw that needed the most work was my own. But that had more to do with the Bozo who built it than it did with the platform. He promised me a working gun in an hour if I'd buy the kit parts. He was using some of his own parts. But it turned out he really wanted me to finance his learning curve with not only my money for the parts kit but my ammo for the endless testing. My "uber cheap" AK turned out to be the most expensive AK that I have ever seen and it never did work right. When I finally sold it because my "gunsmith" (his words, not mine) wouldn't even return my calls he got ticked at me. Heck I even gave him a riding lawnmower for working on it so much but when he got mad I just drove by his house and picked up that mower and dared him to come after it. It was given for him to make the gun work and he never did that. I'm not usually like that but his attitude was unreal. He would hide what he was doing from me as if I was trying to steal his trade secrets. Yeah right. I really wanted to learn how to build a piece of crap. I pretty much knew that aleady.

Most AK's I've seen have been extremely reliable. My own SKS has been so reliable it's almost unbelievable. I love AR's for their light weight and accuracy and their ability to be changed quickly. But for reliability the 7.62 x 39 variants I've seen have been more reliable on the whole. And that is the most important job of any battle carbine IMO. Your mileage may vary and I'm sure it will. There are plenty of good reasons to like AR's. I like them myself. But there's a reason I still use an SKS for HD. Reliability. And yes I know many AR's are very reliable. But they generally cost far more than I paid for my SKS too. I paid $100 for the one I use as my main, go to HD against that unlikely mob that may show up some day. At the time an AR would have cost me about $1500 and there's been a good bit of inflation since then. But I'm still holding on to the known variable in my dining room as my second line of defense (after my shotgun).

Yeah, ARs are more unforgiving of sloppy builds than most and that damn magazine well designed for 20rd straight-walled box magazines contributes to problems with larger capacity magazines.

Sorry to hear about you AK experience, but despite what most people believe, it is happens more than most would imagine. I used to work at a military school that had AK variants in the triple digits. A few of those had a sustained case of hiccups. You aren't the first person to be burned by a self-described "gunsmith". My condolences.

 

[Tirod]

Might look at how the AR is being fielded in the Free World these days. It's replacing a lot of the C&R's mentioned in the threads. It's being used in Saudi Arabia and Jordan as PDW's for bodyguards in 6.8, too.

Versatility is in the eye of the beholder - we have 20" SDM rifles in the field, M4's, and the Marines recently adopted a heavy version as the squad MG. The M14 lost that role as an uncontrollable failure.

Not to forget the Browning Lever Action -

As for most of the new designs, look more closely. If anything, the difficulty of others using direct impingement are sidestepped by simply adopting a piston and having the bolt properly supported by guide rods. Other than than, the barrel extension, controls layout, and overall ingenuity get copied right over. If it was a feature adopted during the development of the M16 series in the last twenty years, they carry it forward. They don't originate much, tho.

And all that gets applied to the modern versions of the AK, too. If anything, a lot of the "product improved" service rifles that remain are getting kitted out with features sometimes blatantly copied from the M16 in configuration if not function.

Rails, free floats, adjustable pull stocks, ambidextrous control? Not on the G3, or my HK. Not on the FNFAL. Not on a lot of those simply because, as said, they didn't last long enough to adopt the features. The rifles were retired from service and sold off to third worlds, or deconstructed to be parts kits. They didn't make the cut.

The AR is going on 45 years, and it's supposed replacements haven't done it yet. SCAR? ACR? XM8? OCIW? About the only one so far to survive each step of the development process is the LSAT - the caseless ammo rifle with shuttle bolt operation.

40% lighter ammo, no brass case, and definitely the next technological step forward. If I was trading in my AR, I'd do it for that. Not yesteryear's antiques.

 

[goon]

I've had plenty of non-working or defective AK's too. I saw a firing pin on a Romanian AK break on a sunny day at the range with barely 400 rounds through a new rifle. My second AK, an SAR-1, ran 100% but struggled to hold a 6" group at 100 yards. I was unfortunate enough to own an Armory AK that was an utter piece of trash and a Lancaster that was even worse. If you'd based your opinion of AK's on either of those, you'd feel that AK's are only good as boat anchors. But the VEPR K, Arsenal SAM7, and Arsenal SLG that I owned were all reliable and accurate rifles. If you'd bought one of those first, you'd be just about ready to fly to Russia to place flowers on ol' Mikhail's grave in person.

Bottom line - any rifle can fail or any rifle can be great.
But after a dozen years of owning military style rifles, I'd be a lot more concerned with the company's customer service than I would about any rifle's alleged faults.

Rails, free floats, adjustable pull stocks, ambidextrous control? Not on the G3, or my HK. Not on the FNFAL. Not on a lot of those simply because, as said, they didn't last long enough to adopt the features. The rifles were retired from service and sold off to third worlds, or deconstructed to be parts kits. They didn't make the cut.

Largely true. I bought a DSA FAL about 10 years ago and though it's been a superlative rifle, I'm thinking about selling it to fund a good bolt action and to start an AR build.
Here's the thing - ten years ago FAL magazines were everywhere for $5 to $10 each and you could get Portuguese or South African 7.62x51 for $140 for 1,000 rounds. It was also a great time for the G3 - magazines for them were even cheaper. Excellent condition parts kits for both were everywhere.
But now... not so much. The AR is the most popular rifle around. Logistically, if you're going to keep a semi-auto fed and running, the AR is the choice to make.

 

[barnbwt]

A buddy of mine actually got to mess with a full auto HK51k --it appeared to be something of a life-altering experience for him (even convinced him to build a CETME, if you can believe that ). Crazy thing was apparently somewhat controllable, if you can also believe that, although there was no way on Earth you could use the sights (any sights) with the muzzle plume generated.

"Yeah, ARs are more unforgiving of sloppy builds than most and that damn magazine well designed for 20rd straight-walled box magazines contributes to problems with larger capacity magazines."
Hey, that's what they said about the Chauchat . In all seriousness, the difference between the two in terms of tolerating poor workmanship is probably not that big, but the AR simply has more places where mistakes can be made. The AK has the shell, the rails, and the trunnion; the AR has more parts, more joints, more places for things to go wrong if care isn't taken or robots aren't used for manufacture. Even then, you see far, far, far more AR lowers for sale as "blems" than AK flats or shells . At least the AR has a bit more damping in its system of operation, so cycling isn't as rough on the receiver, but there are also a couple extra places where binding can occur. And because you have aluminum against steel, that binding causes higher friction/galling/wear than would otherwise occur, though it makes the gun tremendously lightweight (the barrel extension contributes much more to that end, though).

FWIW, getting that STGW57 receiver to work right was the most tedious thing I've ever done. No matter how well or how thoroughly braced and clamped, ever. single. last. weld. caused stuff to 'change' and start binding. The original guns had tolerances between the bolt and tube around .01" or so --absolutely ridiculous for a service arm (and a filthy delayed blowback at that). I at least avoided removing material from the bolt body (mostly) to get things running smooth enough for the bolt to drop freely through it.

TCB

 

[Cee Zee]

You aren't the first person to be burned by a self-described "gunsmith". My condolences.

Yeah I know a lot of those kit guns were pure junk especially when it got to where they had to bend their own receivers. My "gunsmith" actually tried to talk me into investing in a bunch of blank receivers which he figured he could learn to bend with maybe one or two examples. Right. Bending steel requires sophisticated equipment to do it right not to mention a good working knowledge of metallurgy. This is the same guy who told me to order a receiver for his early Romanian parts even though that receiver was obviously not from a Romanian AK. It was some obscure version of the AK. I think it might have been Albanian. The ad said it was but the holes were clearly in the wrong place. I just knew it wasn't a Romanian and that included a WASR. The gunsmith's parts were from an earlier Romanian design but the receiver wasn't from that model or the WASR. He said, "No problem, we'll just drill new holes anyway." Ok and the fact that the rest of the metal didn't line up either wasn't going to be a problem. What a joke. Stupid me knew it wouldn't work before we ordered it but he guaranteed it would work. It took about 500 rounds of my ammo to prove that it wouldn't not to mention 6 months of bs from the genius. The fact he tried to hide his work was the worst. Like I wanted to learn from the worst smith around. Sheesh!

I got my money back for the kit by selling the rifle for the same price I paid for the kit and he threw a fit saying the barrel was his. So much for my guarantee of having a working AK in an hour. It would shoot about 3 times and then quit requiring extensive repair work. It was so involved it would take an hour to go into what all he did but suffice it to say it looked like a big glob of welding instead of a receiver.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Maybe an HK MR556...but nothing else.

 

[Jackal]

What other semi-auto would you trade your AR15 for?

Any, if it wasnt a BCM.

 

[meanmrmustard]

The comments about flexibility and versatility are not about a mission where multiple uppers would be carried. The comments are about the ability to perform different weapon type missions simple by modifying a single design, which I think you probably understood. Sorry you don’t think the depth and width of discussion should be temporarily expanded after plenty of the usual minimally informative or platitudinous get an AK, M1a, etc. comments. You should stop :banghead: before you hurt yourself because weapon “systems” is exactly what modern service rifles have become. All the different pieces of equipment that are installed or removed depending upon user preference and individual mission profile make them "systems".



All true platitudinous AK comments.



Now these are not platitudinous AK comments. Why would you need to carry “a whole different AR upper”? Don’t you think there are QD mounts for ARs? Your accuracy comment is a rarely stated difficult to believe AK comment.



Nothing wrong with your choice/suggestion based on your experience and generally agreed upon AK attributes.

Look, I am not trying to start an AR vs. AK or caliber war. My post was a not so subtle suggestion that awhendricks consider upgrading from his S&W instead of abandoning one of the two (AK being the other) most successful modern rifle patterns for something else that is not. If he decides to do it anyway, I suggest he consider another AK type, specifically a high quality AK variant.

Dude, you lost me at platitudinous.

System is a mall ninja buzzword. Keep using it.

You don't hear often if folks trading M1s and M1As for AR15s, just saying.

What did I say that is difficult to believe? Shoot either platform enough, and you'll eventually understand. I can't make you. Not all ARs are accurate, not all AKs are inaccurate. Hopefully, you'll get it.

Ps... Please don't call me a water-going beaked mammal. Hurts my feelings.

 

[MDI_Weapon]

If I had a spare AR...

Maybe a DR200 with a K2 1:7 twist barrel (with 2" chopped off), a free float quad rail. 90 degree safety mod and a folding stock. Piston driven, takes AR mags and it has an adjustable gas system. I already have an AKM.

 

[JustinJ]

As a collector I can't say that I would "trade my AR(s)", but if the zombie apocalypse happened tomorrow i'd prolly take a Beretta ARX100, assuming they live up to the hype, over an AR as my SHTF weapon. That, or i'd just stick with my AUG.

 

[bflee]

An AK that shoots as accurate as an AR. But they dont exist.